Sunday, February 14

Now, before a chorus of "what the fuck, dude?" erupts, I'm not referring to the quality of this great and highly influential milestone. Friedkin's film is to the Horror genre what Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now is to the dramatic depiction of war on film. Both are Hollywood watersheds with the sprawling stories of their creation and postscript being just as interesting as the resulting images on-screen. One could devote their passion to becoming scholars of just these two features and still continually discover new aspects within their worlds.

The Exorcist, aside from perhaps 20th Century Fox's The Omen, was one of the last times an old studio power threw their weight full bore into pursuing something of immense quality and controversy that unquestionably resides in the Horror genre. For that alone, it's an effort that's special, instead of the long standing trend of major studios buckling under lobbyist or rating board pressures, cheaping out on the genre, or striking distribution deals for films outside the Hollywood superpower fold in the hopes of hitting upon a phenomenon. Warner and Friedkin made an event film that doesn't rely on trite gimmicks that only wants to scare the hell out its audience--even if at the same time the audience is screaming sacrilege at the screen.

Though I can't help but feel The Exorcist has sorta fallen at least halfway to the wayside since its shove back into the spotlight a decade ago with the dubious Version You've Never Seen. That and the big brouhaha over the mess of the fourth mediocre sequel/prequel. The film might have suffered the Star Wars effect only on a vastly smaller scale. I'm not the biggest fan of that sci-fi franchise; however, the whole Lucas universe seems markedly "less" due to the the post-Phantom Menace explosion of merchandising, re-cuts, prequels, animated numbers, graphic novels, video games, baby clothes, and bobbleheads that we're all still enduring.

In some way, before their rebirths, The Exorcist and Star Wars were retiring in comfort under the care of their respective fanbases and genre communities. Afterward, it was like they had been taken away from loved ones and propped up for the entire world to see for profit. A bit of the closeness was rubbed away with everyone having an opinion and a Yoda LEGO figure taped to their monitor in their cubicle.

I'm going to say something that might put me on the shit list, but I don't think it's a stretch to believe that a sizable portion of horror fans actually feel resentment towards The Exorcist over its trip back into the mainstream's conscious. They like to belabor the fact the film is often cited as "the scariest movie of all time" and ride upon their high horse with a sneer when someone "outside the loop" says that. I'm not saying it's the scariest, that's subjective, but they're just cutting their noses off. We should be nothing but proud that such an example is held as the most popular high watermark to this day; even if your co-worker believes that despite missing two weeks of work after developing a hernia from the hilarity of Meet the Spartans.

With time, The Exorcist will hopefully befully reclaimedafter this quiet probation. Warner and Friedkin are again working on a fresh restoration of the original cut and are said to be planning a Halloween '10 Blu-ray debut of both versions. Watching the original cut on Warner's 25th Anniversary DVD last night, the film definitely needs it, as the picture quality is quite dated. So there's hope, so long as Warner doesn't decide to throw TheVersion You've Never Seen back into theaters for it's tenth anniversary...in IMAX 3-D...

Ah, I got the connection now. Sadly, I don't think it has the same emotional punch or is held in as high of a regard among 'newer' horror fans due to the influx of torture porn and other films of the ilk. I think I see what you are saying :)

Honestly man, I didn't mind the new cut of the film. Friedkin was completely behind it, and it included the proper ending which makes it very clear that it is indeed a happy conclusion. This film is certainly an odd one, and to me it isn't as much of a horror film as it is a Catholic film... interesting rant though. ;)

Here is where I believe that old adage "familiarity breeds contempt" rings true. Those who pull the financial strings in Hollywood either don't get, or more likely, don't CARE that too much of something is a bad thing. It's one thing to look wistfully back on the fresh faces of young Harrison and Carrie and remember your first Greedo figure. It's quite another to be assaulted in every medium but the new logos and needless, revisionist back-stories and reissues and double-dips and whatever and etc until even the most hardcore fan says "enough".

It's hard to care about such things as taste and moderation and preserving the original "essence" of something when making big huge leaps for cash, I imagine. And while I actually enjoy the THIRD Exorcist film very much (the most, even?) I certainly agree that -5- total franchise films and a re-cut and two completely different (and meaningless) prequels definitely tends towards saturation, and makes it easier to lose/forget that sense of awe the first EXORCIST had all those years ago upon its shocking big screen debut.